DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

As if a 20-Year Consent Order Wasn’t Enough Fun: FTC Brings First Monetary Settlement in Information Security Case

Posted on January 7, 2016 by Dissent

Adam H. Greene of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP discusses the consent order Henry Schein Practice Solutions signed to settle an FTC complaint, and finds it noteworthy for a number of reasons. One of the reasons, he writes, is that it is the first consent order in a data security case to involve a monetary penalty.

I don’t agree with framing it that way, though, as this really wasn’t about data security enforcement or Henry Schein simply offering “subpar encryption.” This case was about deceptive or misleading advertising, which brings it squarely under the non-security enforcement cases FTC has tackled. Had Henry Schein advertised its product by saying, “This product does not provide AES-256 encryption, but rather a weaker form of data security that does not fully comply, by itself, with HIPAA’s Security Rule,” could the FTC ever have gone after them? I don’t think so.

That issue aside for the moment, here’s another point Greene makes:

The FTC’s complaint alleged that the encryption that Schein’s software used “was not capable of helping dentists protect patient data, as required by HIPAA.” What the FTC’s complaint suggests that the HIPAA Security Rule requires arguably is not the case. The HIPAA Breach Notification Rule includes a breach notification safe harbor if data is encrypted in accordance with NIST standards; however, the Security Rule, in contrast, does not. Although it appears that a covered entity or business associate could comply with the HIPAA Security Rule even with encryption that does not meet NIST standards, this FTC settlement raises the prospect that the FTC may consider related claims of HIPAA compliance as deceptive if encryption does not meet NIST standards.

Greene also mentions some take-home messages, beginning with:

HIPAA compliance may not be enough.

Yes, I think the LabMD enforcement action has already demonstrated that the FTC will pursue cases that HHS/OCR might not pursue. Then too, even 7 years ago, they went after RiteAid and CVS on disposal of pharmacy records, even though both those entities fall under HIPAA.

Read Greene’s full article on Privacy & Security Law Blog.


Related:

  • Resource: NY DFS Issues New Cybersecurity Guidance to Address Risks Associated with the Use of Third-Party Service Providers
  • Bombay High Court Orders Department of Telecommunications to Block Medusa Accounts After Generali Insurance Data Breach
  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
  • John Bolton Indictment Provides Interesting Details About Hack of His AOL Account and Extortion Attempt
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
  • Scenes from a "No Kings" Protest, 10-18-25
Category: Commentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← ICO takes enforcement action against Alzheimer’s Society (UPDATED)
Sophos acquisition Cyberoam victim of cyber attack →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Two suspected Scattered Spider hackers plead not guilty over Transport for London cyberattack
  • Attleboro investigating ‘cybersecurity incident’ impacting city’s IT systems
  • Fired techie admits sabotaging ex-employer, causing $862K in damage
  • Threat actors have reportedly launched yet another campaign involving an application connected to Salesforce
  • Russian hackers target IVF clinics across UK used by thousands of couples
  • US, allies sanction Russian bulletproof hosting services for ransomware support
  • Researchers claim ‘largest leak ever’ after uncovering WhatsApp enumeration flaw
  • Large medical lab in South Africa suffers multiple data breaches
  • Report released on PowerSchool cyber attack
  • Sue The Hackers – Google Sues Over Phishing as a Service

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Cole v. Quest Diagnostics: The Third Circuit Weighs in on Pixels, Privacy, and Medical Data
  • Closing the Privacy Gap: HIPRA Targets Health Apps and Wearables
  • Researchers claim ‘largest leak ever’ after uncovering WhatsApp enumeration flaw
  • CIPL Publishes Discussion Paper Comparing U.S. State Privacy Law Definitions of Personal Data and Sensitive Data
  • India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 brought into force

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: +1 516-776-7756
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.